Ssr 


UC-NRLF 


$B    21    fill 


1 
C 

0 


ss 


ilM*4A*^'    -••5f-* 


iv-- 


ie. 


Publication  No.  33 


THE 
CHARITY   DIRECTOR 


A  BRIEF   STUDY   OF 
HIS  RESPONSIBILITIES 


BY 

ADA  ELIOT  SHEFFIELD 

MEMBER    OF   THE    MASSACHUSETTS    STATE    BOARD    OF   CHARITY 


Charity  Organization  Department  of  the 

Russell  Sage  Foundation 

Room  613,  105  East  Twenty-second  Street 

New  York  City 

1913 


"^^ 


''I 


nttp^7/ww\A/;arthive 


THE 
CHARITY   DIRECTOR 


A  BRIEF   STUDY   OF 
HIS  RESPONSIBILITIES 


BY 

ADA  ELIOT  SHEFFIELD 

MEMBER   OF   THE    MASSACHUSETTS    STATE    BOARD   OF   CHARITY 


Charity  Organization  Department  of  the 

Russell  Sage  Foundation 

Room  613,  105  East  Twenty-second  Street 

New  York  City 

1913 


Si' 


THE  CHARITY  DIRECTOR 


The  need  of  defining  the  duties  of  the  charity  director  arises  from 
the  fact  that  his  unpaid  work  is  without  the  spur  of  an  immediate  self- 
interest.  Service  of  this  kind  many  people  think  of  as  so  much  a  work 
of  supererogation  that  standards  are  inapplicable.  They  regard 
membership  on  a  board  as  already  constituting  virtue,  not  as  involv- 
ing obligations  which,  once  undertaken,  it  becomes  remiss  to  neglect. 
The  assumption  behind  this  point  of  view  is  that  those  who  fill  impaid 
positions  do  so  from  sheer  altruism;  that  though  they  may  show  the 
average  selfishness  in  other  relations  of  life,  the  moment  they  enter 
this  field  they  rise  above  ambition,  love  of  power  or  social  prestige, 
the  need  of  spending  surplus  energy,  or  even  a  personal  taste  for  public 
affairs,  into  a  sublimated  love  of  humanity.  Such  a  notion  of  altru- 
ism not  only  implies  an  imnatural  repudiation  of  interest  in  one's 
own  faculties,  but  it  thereby  puts  this  form  of  public  service  on  a 
false,  if  not  hypocritical  ground.  PubUc  spirit  is  rarely  a  spontaneous 
sentiment.  It  is  rather  that  gradual  expanding  of  the  imagination 
that  accompanies  insight  iiito  social  maladjustments.  One  who  does 
faithful  service,  whatever  his  original  motive,  comes  little  by  little  to 
identify  himself  with  his  wider  interests.  His  conception  of  society 
becomes  no  longer  bounded  by  his  relation  with  the  individuals  of 
his  own  group;  it  includes  groups  which  had  previously  seemed  far 
removed  from  his  personal  welfare.  The  state  in  time  becomes  to  him 
a  living  organism  of  which  he  is  a  part.  Such  a  development  does  not 
efface  a  man's  self;  else  it  would  destroy  his  incentive  to  maintain  a 
high  standard  of  work:  rather  it  enlarges  that  self,  until  it  makes  his 
own  satisfactions  in  life  come  to  be  identical  with  the  public  weal. 

The  directing  of  a  charity  may,  however,  be  selfishly  done,  in 
which  case  its  personal  rewards  in  the  way  of  prestige  and  of  an  en- 
joyable avocation  become  ends  in  themselves.  Hence  altruism  must 
take  rise  from  an  enlightened  conception  of  theVrole  of  a  director. 
The  Analogy  of  This  role  should  be  conceived  of  as  that  of  a  rep- 
the  Business  Di-  resentative  of  the  community,  planning  and  guiding 
r^ctoT  the  work  with  the  public  interest  in  view.     The 

fimction  of  the  charity  director  thus  differs  from  that  of  the  director 
of  a  business  corporation,  in  that  the  latter,  representing  stockholders, 
has  the  duty  of  safeguarding  merely  the  money  interests  of  a  limited 
group  of  people.  Whatever  change  in  this  regard  the  socializing  of 
industry  may  bring  about,  he  is  at  present  not  ordinarily  expected  to 


^'12274 


'look' out  for  the  interest  of  the  pubHc.  As  to  the  scope  of  influence  of 
a  business  director;  although  in  theory  he  has  a  guiding  hand,  in  prac- 
tice he  serves  rather  to  check  than  to  initiate.  The  view  of  his  func- 
tion held  by  able  managers  of  large  corporations  is  expressed  by  Mr. 
Russell  Robb  in  a  lecture  before  the  Harvard  School  of  Business: 
"Ten  or  twelve  representatives  acting  together  cannot  give  effective 
administration.  Numbers  are  good  for  conference,  to  protect  against 
prejudice,  ...  to  bring  out  by  discussion  all  relevant  factors, 
to  throw  upon  problems  side-lights  from  varied  experience,  and  to 
assure  regular  procedure;  but  the  autocrat's  command  is  superior  in 
effectiveness."*  Mr.  Robb  evidently  has  in  mind  the  promptness  and 
vigor  of  decision  often  essential  to  business  success,  and  apparently 
accepts  boards  of  directors  as  an  appendage  of  doubtful  value,  which 
the  public  has  forced  on  incorporated  business.  But  the  opposition 
that  he  makes  out  between  collective  wisdom  and  "effectiveness" 
seems  to  involve  a  contradiction,  since  the  autocrat's  guidance,  sub- 
ject to  prejudice  and  snap- judgment,  is  bound  to  be  ineffective  in  its 
upshot.  A  layman  might  ask  whether  the  attacks  to  which  business 
men  are  today  subjected  may  not  to  some  extent  hark  back  to  this 
limited  and  short-sighted  conception  of  "effectiveness."  In  any  case, 
the  autocrat  in  business  has  a  justification  which  finds  no  parallel  in 
charity.  With  him  success  turns  from  time  to  time  on  opportunities 
that  must  be  grasped  by  prompt  and  resolute  action,  and  that  may 
never  recur.  With  charity,  on  the  other  hand,  the  success  is  at 
bottom  an  educational  one.  Its  effectiveness  depends  upon  the 
amoimt  and  quality  of  thought  which  its  administrators  bring  to  bear 
in  formulating  their  policies  in  the  light  of  civic  ideals.  The  need 
for  quick  action  in  charity  does  not  arise  on  questions  of  broad  im- 
port, but  is  confined  to  such  occasional  matters  of  current  detail  as 
would  necessarily  rest  for  decision  not  with  directors  but  with  the 
manager.  The  policies  which  directors  of  charity  put  into  effect  are 
among  the  constant  educational  forces  in  the  state.  Charities  are 
day  by  day  defining  what  is  legitimate  dependency.  By  their  action 
in  case  after  case  they  are  telling  not  only  the  class  that  sink  below  the 
line  of  self-care,  but  those  large  numbers  just  above  it,  imder  what 
conditions  and  at  what  point  the  natural  responsibilities  of  the  in- 
dividual will  be  assumed  by  society.    These  policies  raise  expectations 

*  Russell  Robb:  Stone  and  Webster  Public  Service  Journal,  June,  1909.  Mr. 
Robb  does  justice  in  this  same  lecture  to  the  compensating  advantages  secured 
through  a  board  of  directors,  for  he  says,  "Whatever  may  seemingly  be  gained 
temporarily  [by  one-man  control]  through  vigorous  and  able  direction  is  more  than 
offset  by  the  instability  or  uncertainty  of  the  corporate  affairs.  Organizations  are 
thus  having  brought  to  them  a  new  problem;  they  have  to  provide  stability  in 
administration  as  well  as  efl&ciency,  to  preserve  the  vigor  of  initiative  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  yet  to  benefit  by  the  judgment  of  many,  and  they  have  to  assure  the 
continuity  in  administration  that  is  demanded  by  the  span  of  life  of  the  corpora- 
tion." 

According  to  Mr.  Lawrence  R.  Dicksee  {Business  Organisation,  Longmans), 
boards  of  directors  in  England  exercise  more  control  than  is  usual  in  the  United 
States. 


according  to  which  considerable  groups  of  people  adapt  their  lives. 
Hence  frequent  or  ill-considered  changes  of  principle  foster  in  them  a 
gambUng  spirit  that  is  the  sure  precursor  of  increasing  dependency. 
Thus  charity  is  more  complex  than  business  in  that  it  has  to  reckon 
with  a  larger  number  of  intangible  forces  in  the  field  of  human  motive. 
When  a  business  is  feebly  managed,  its  balance-sheet  tells  the  story. 
When  a  charity  does  slack  and  perfunctory  work,  its  books  may  show 
an  actual  surplus.  Charitable  agencies  make  it  a  point  not  to  cover 
the  same  field;  and  since  a  charity  therefore  meets  no  competition, 
neither  the  number  nor  the  satisfaction  of  its  beneficiaries  is  a  re- 
liable indication  of  its  efficiency.  Philanthropy,  indeed,  differs  radi- 
cally from  business  in  aiming  to  do  away  with  the  very  need  of  its 
work. 

The  conception  of  a  director  as  a  representative  of  society  ap- 
pointed to  guide  the  disbursing  of  fimds  in  such  a  way  as  to  conserve 
the  public  interest,  discloses  the  nature  of  his  duties  to  be  three-fold. 
He  must  help  choose  the  personnel  of  his  board;  he  must  master  the 
purpose  and  methods  of  its  work;  he  must  help  maintain  an  esprit  de 
corps  among  its  employees.* 

With  the  self-perpetuating  board  of  a  private 
the^Board*^*^^  charity,  the  first  duty  is  that  of  choosing  the  best 
available  fellow-members.  What  considerations 
should  guide  this  choice?  The  members  of  a  board  should  be  men 
and  women  commanding  leisure  to  do  the  required  work.  Boards  like 
to  make  up  their  nu  ber  with  "representative"  names;  that  is,  with 
the  names  of  those  prominent  in  business  or  social  circles,  those  whose 
backing,  they  think,  will  inspire  public  confidence.  Of  such  a  prac- 
tice it  may  be  remarked,  that  if  '^representative"  people  really  under- 
stand and  follow  the  work  of  the  society,  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to 
give  their  activity  an  official  standing.  But  if,  as  frequently  happens, 
the  recognized  leader  is  too  busy  to  do  anything  beyond  making  out  a 
yearly  check,  then  to  place  him  on  the  board  amounts  to  a  deception 
of  the  public.  The  assurance  thereby  implied  that  a  man  of  recog- 
nized character  and  ability  is  helping  direct  its  work  is  bound  to 
prove  fallacious;  and  as  contributors  find  this  sort  of  pretense  to  be 
common,  they  will  grow  to  distrust  all  representative  names.  A  lady 
once  told  me  that  she  had  accepted  enrolment  on  a  certain  board  with 
the  express  understanding  that  she  was  to  serve  it  solely  by  her  name. 
Of  its  work  she  could  not  say  whether  or  not  it  deserved  support. 
In  another  case,  the  new  president  of  a  small  society  called  a  meeting 
of  its  members  only  to  learn  that  they  had  never  met  before,  and  that 
not  one  of  them  knew  anything  either  of  the  methods  of  this  agency, 
of  its  very  confused  finances,  or  of  the  fact  that  it  was  duplicating  the 
efforts  of  better  equipped  charities.    At  least  two  of  these  board 

*  An  exhaustive  discussion  of  a  director's  duties  would  of  course  deal  with  the 
large  and  intricate  questions  of  policy  as  to  the  raising  and  administering  of  funds. 
The  administering  of  the  work  here  considered  involves  the  duties  most  distinctive 
of  charity. 


members  were  citizens  of  standing — one  of  them  a  man  known  and 
respected  throughout  New  England.  For  two  years  his  name  had 
unquestionably  influenced  many  to  help  support  a  superfluous  charity. 
Such  directors  err  through  lack  of  clear  thinking  as  to  what  should  be 
the  obligation  of  their  society  toward  the  public. 

Besides  men  of  business  and  social  standing,  our  boards  like  to 
include  members  with  some  distinction  in  social  work.  If  these  ex- 
perienced men  and  women  will  restrict  themselves  to  such  interests 
as  they  can  reflect  upon,  their  prestige  may  rightly  enlist  public  con- 
fidence in  a  society.  But  if  they  yield  to  the  temptation,  sure  to  come 
to  them,  to  join  board  after  boards  even  long  experience  cannot  save 
them  from  becoming  mere  names.  It  is  obviously  impossible  that 
any  man  should  be  of  much  real  value  as  a  director  in  many  charities  of 
various  scope.  He  lives  in  a  bustle  of  service  without  much  real 
accomplishment.  I  myself  once  served  as  secretary  of  a  committee 
made  up  entirely  of  men  and  women  notable  in  charity.  Anyone 
would  have  said  that  such  a  committee  would  direct  with  rare  judg- 
ment. Had  they  given  time,  their  long  experience  should  have  been 
fertile  in  results.  As  it  was,  they  were  all  much  too  busy  to  do  more 
than  attend  meetings.  This  they  did  faithfully;  but  the  work  in 
question  required  more  than  that.  Though  knowing,  as  few  philan- 
thropists know,  the  approved  solution  of  recognized  family  problems, 
they  could  not  learn,  from  meetings  crowded  with  routine  work,  just 
how  and  where  ideal  solutions  should  be  so  modified  as  to  apply  imder 
conditions  that  made  co-operation  with  outsiders  difficult.  Only 
by  giving  a  couple  of  hours  a  month  to  talk  the  work  over  with  their 
secretary,  could  they  have  obtained  an  appreciation  of  this  difficulty. 
Two  or  three  comparatively  obscure  men  and  women,  of  good  judg- 
ment and  with  adequate  time  to  give,  would  have  strengthened  this 
apparently  exceptional  committee.  I  believe  that  any  board  or 
committee  ought  to  count  among  its  members  several  persons  chosen 
irrespective  of  wealth  or  prominence,  and  solely  for  the  amount  and 
quality  of  regular  work  they  will  do.  It  is  true  that  in  order  to  raise 
its  funds  a  society  needs  the  backing  of  members  well-known  and  in 
the  public  confidence,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  financial  success  de- 
mands that  a  board  should  be  active.  Dummy  directors  do  not 
attract  money  in  the  long  run,  whereas  an  active  board,  even  though 
its  members  have  no  other  prominence,  may  gradually  win  a  reputa- 
tion that  will  build  up  a  list  of  steady  contributors.  A  board  whose 
members  are  at  once  well-known,  experienced,  and  active,  is  the  char- 
ity organizer's  dream.  As  for  citizens  of  recognized  standing  for 
wealth  or  personal  achievement,  but  too  busy  to  bear  a  real  responsi- 
bility, boards  can  secure  their  general  approval  and  good-will  by  means 
of  frankly  honorary  offices. 

The  directors  of  a  charity  should  first,  then,  be  men  and  women 
with  leisure  to  guide  its  affairs.  Secondly,  they  should  be  those  who 
are  representative  of  different  elements  in  the  commimity.  A  board 
that  includes  members  from  various  sections  of  the  city,  from  diverse 


social  groups,  religious  denominations,  and  even  nationalities,  gives 
the  charity  a  secure  hold  on  public  interest,  and  extends  its  oppor- 
tunity for  influence  and  education.  It  is  of  course  conceivable  that 
the  administrative  body  may  become  too  heterogeneous  to  pull 
together,  but  the  far  commoner  danger  is  that  members  will  prefer 
always  to  elect  their  personal  friends.  This  may  develop  a  group  of 
workers  that,  while  compact  and  harmonious,  makes  other  workers  in 
the  field  at  large  shrink  from  offering  any  professional  co-operation 
that  might  be  misconstrued  as  an  effort  to  get  themselves  included  in  a 
social  clique.  Some  years  ago  while  attempting  to  awaken  an  in- 
terest throughout  a  group  of  small  cities  in  a  state-wide  committee, 
I  called  on  a  lady  active  and  esteemed  in  her  local  charities.  Her 
first  question  was,  "Who  are  the  people  that  rim  this  committee?" 
I  gave  the  names.  "Yes,"  she  said,  "it  is  the  same  old  crowd.  They 
don't  really  include  us,  nor  even  important  workers  in  their  own 
town."  And  in  spite  of  the  evidence  that  my  calling  on  her  afforded 
of  their  desire  to  broaden,  I  could  get  no  further  response.    In  a 

second  city,  my  effort  met  the  answer  that  the  "people  down  in  X 

think  we  don't  know  anything,  so  what's  the  use  of  joining  the  com- 
mittee." This  "same  old  crowd,"  from  whom  these  people  felt 
themselves  aloof,  was  made  up  of  devoted  workers,  regular  in  their 
attendance  at  meetings,  generous  with  their  time,  and  in  some  cases 
open-handed  with  their  money.  The  growth  of  a  compact  group  like 
theirs  comes  about  by  no  invidious  intention.  It  begins  at  the  pioneer 
stage  in  a  charity,  when  those  most  interested  draw  together  those 
whom  they  already  know  and  can  coimt  on  to  put  in  hard  work. 
Their  work  increases  their  original  interest  and  adds  the  new  bond  of 
problems  in  common.  They  tend  to  coalesce.  Having  started  to- 
gether, they  feel  a  closer  tie  with  one  another  than  with  outsiders. 
It  takes  some  effort  to  draw  in  new  people;  so  they  follow  the  line  of 
least  resistance,  put  one  another  on  committees,  and  assign  important 
work  to  the  same  persons  over  and  over,  rather  than  go  to  the  exertion 
of  initiating  novices.  If,  in  course  of  time,  these  men  and  women  join 
repeatedly  in  committees  and  societies,  they  grow  more  and  more 
accustomed  to  pulling  together,  and  the  line  of  least  resistance  becomes 
a  groove.  Their  influence  has  been  worthily  gained;  but  their  policy 
of  inbreeding  narrows  its  scope,  and  makes  them  liable  to  the  re- 
proach of  maintaining  a  "charity  trust."  Vnd  what  is  the  effect  on 
the  spirit  of  a  city's  charities  when  this  poKcy  results  in  "interlocking 
directorates"  between  different  boards?  By  emphasizing  the  same 
point  of  view,  and  obstructing  the  development  of  diverse  methods, 
its  tendency  can  hardly  be  other  than  gradually  to  make  the  charities 
of  such  a  city  narrow-visioned  and  provincial. 

The  Director's  Next  in  importance  to  the  director's  duty  of 
Mastery  of  Pur-  choosing  good  fellow-members,  comes  that  of  mas- 
poses  and  Meth-  tering  the  purpose  and  methods  of  his  charity.  I 
°  suggest  three  courses  which  a  trustee  should  expect 

to  follow  in  order  to  make  himself  familiar  with  the  work  for  which 


he  shares  responsibility.  First,  he  should  at  the  outset  acquaint 
himself  thoroughly  with  the  various  departments  of  the  board's  ac- 
tivity, in  order  to  understand  them  as  a  necessary  ground-work 
for  its  policies.  Second,  he  ought  to  give  regularly  some  time,  if 
no  more  than  two  hours  a  month,  to  discussing  business  with  the 
executive  officer,  in  order  that  the  board  may  keep  an  inside  familiar- 
ity with  the  application  of  its  poUcies,  and  that  board  and  executive 
may  thresh  out  differences  of  opinion  more  at  length  than  can  be 
done  at  set  meetings.  Third,  he  should,  through  the  counsels  of  any 
committee  to  which  he  has  been  appointed,  follow  the  secretary's  work 
to  observe  how  it  conforms  to  the  principles  laid  down,  and  where 
it  may  entail  departures  therefrom.  In  the  latter  event  he  would  of 
course  pass  the  question  on  to  the  full  board.  Let  us  consider  these 
three  courses  in  their  order. 

1.  As  custodians  of  a  public  trust,  directors  should  understand  the 
details  of  its  execution.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  should  follow 
the  routine  day  in  and  day  out,  but  that  they  should  know  precisely 
what  is  the  nature  of  the  daily  case  work,  in  order  to  frame  sound  prin- 
ciples. One  sometimes  meets  a  curious  lack  of  respect  for  case  work 
among  those  who  have  attained  to  authority.  They  regard  directing 
as  something  done  from  a  pinnacle,  and  seem  to  think  that  they  can 
get  a  broad  view  without  knowing  what  they  are  getting  it  of.  A  pol- 
icy is,  or  ought  to  be,  merely  a  general  principle  developed  by  a  thor- 
ough knowledge  of  many  individual  instances.  If  the  facts  brought 
out  in  the  handling  of  these  cases  are  insufficient  or  irrelevant,  the 
policy  built  upon  them  is  vicious.  A  new  director,  therefore,  on  as- 
suming his  duties,  should  acquaint  himself  in  detail  with  the  methods 
by  which  his  society  deals  with  its  beneficiaries.  In  such  a  study,  its 
secretary  should  be  his  guide.  This  is  the  only  one  of  a  trustee's 
duties  which  may  make  a  serious  drain  on  his  time.  It  would  not, 
however,  have  to  be  repeated. 

2.  A  trustee  should  allow  some  time  each  month  for  consultation 
with  the  secretary.  In  the  untrammelled  discussion  of  an  occasional 
spare  hour,  two  people  can  canvass  the  weak  or  strong  points  in  their 
methods  with  a  specificness  impracticable  at  meetings.  The  trustee 
thus  clears  his  mind  as  to  whither  their  procedure  is  tending;  the 
secretary  gets  a  knowledge  equally  valuable,  namely,  that  of  his 
director's  personality.  One  danger  has  here  to  be  guarded  against. 
The  director  must  be  careful  that  he  and  the  secretary  do  not  settle 
out  of  court  matters  that  should  properly  come  before  a  committee 
or  before  the  board.  Closet  decisions  have  at  once  the  effect  of  dead- 
ening the  interest  of  other  members. 

3.  Trustees  should  follow  the  secretary's  work  through  committee 
meetings.  Only  thus  can  they  keep  familiar  with  the  current  work  of 
the  whole  society,  that  for  which  it  was  organized,  and  by  the  quality  of 
which  it  will  be  judged.  If  this  work  is  done  slackly  or  injudiciously, 
the  reproach  will  come  home  to  them,  not  as  a  ''soulless  corporation," 
but  as  individuals.     It  is  through  these  smaller  meetings  in  committee 


that  a  director  can  judge  how  policies  fit  conditions,  and  where  they 
need  modification  or  change. 

A  Safeguard  Against  Perfunctory  Work. — The  concern  with 
details  here  advocated  for  directors  is  justifiable  on  two  grounds. 
Trustees  should  know  details,  because  in  charity  work  it  is  easy  to 
bluff.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  evidences  of  its  results  are 
scattered  among  the  homes  of  the  families  helped,  and  that  to  verify 
these  results  one  would  almost  have  to  duplicate  the  original  labor. 
Poor  people  for  whom  ineffective  work  is  done  make  no  complaint; 
other  workers  who  in  seeking  co-operation  meet  only  a  half-hearted 
response,  turn  elsewhere,  but  rarely  express  themselves  in  a  concerted 
protest;  those  who  give  money  lose  interest,  they  don't  know  why, 
but  really  because  the  society  is  perfunctory;  and  gradually  public 
confidence  dies  without  any  explicit  complaint  having  been  made. 
The  story  of  failure  in  social  work  lies  most  often  in  what  a  society 
does  not  do;-  and  the  general  public  is  not  quick  to  put  its  finger  on 
sins  of  omission. 

Directors  of  a  philanthropy,  therefore,  need  to  exercise  watchful- 
ness. Slackness  in  charity  can  go  on  for  months  without  showing 
itself,  if  trustees  do  not  first  understand  thoroughly,  and  then  follow 
to  some  extent,  the  details  of  their  work.  Its  signs,  however,  are  dis- 
cernible to  those  who  know  for  what  to  be  on  the  lookout.  For  in- 
stance, inefficiency  will  be  disclosed  by  a  careful  study  of  records. 
Are  they  full  and  specific,  or  scanty  and  vague?  Do  they  show  re- 
sourcefulness in  co-operating  with  other  charities?  It  will  also  be 
disclosed  by  a  close  questioning  of  agents.  Do  they  talk  with  definite- 
ness  or  do  they  take  refuge  in  generalities?  When  a  social  worker 
answers,  as  did  one  to  my  question  how  she  dealt  with  her  cases,  and 
what  were  her  results,  that  she  really  could  not  put  it  into  words 
because  her  work  was  "inspirational,"  one  may  suspect  incompetency. 

Interaction  Between  Director  and  Executive. — The  second 
groimd  on  which  a  concern  with  details  is  justifiable  is  that  it  affords 
a  basis  for  a  wholesome  and  stimulating  relation  between  a  board  and 
its  secretary.  Trustees  sometimes  feel  that  the  duty  of  a  board  is  to 
select  the  right  executive  and  then  back  him  up;  that  they  should 
trust  him  to  carry  out  their  policies  "with  a  free  hand."  Surely 
this  makes  a  very  difficult  position  for  the  executive  ofl&cer.  I  have 
happened  to  work  both  under  trustees  that  followed  my  work  and 
knew  what  I  was  doing,  and  under  trustees  that,  having  selected  me, 
backed  me  up,  but  never  knew  when  I  did  well  or  when  I  did  ill.  I 
can  say  from  my  own  experience,  what  I  think  others  will  confirm, 
that  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  hold  oneself  up  to  high  standards 
when  one's  work  passes  equally  without  comment  whether  good  or 
indifferent.  The  employee  has  to  rely  for  motive  power  solely  upon 
his  own  brain  and  conscience.  It  is  as  relaxing  never  to  incur  dis- 
approval by  remissness  as  it  is  discouraging  never  to  win  approval  by 
zeal.  A  board  should  therefore  help  the  secretary  to  get  the  best  he 
can  out  of  himself  by  taking  note  of  his  efforts,  his  difficulties,  and  his 


success.  If  it  is  well  for  the  secretary  that  his  directors  should  under- 
stand details,  it  is  equally  well  for  the  board  that  he  should  keep  them 
fully  apprised  of  his  problems.  A  far-sighted  secretary  will  see  that 
such  an  open  course  will  enhance  his  board's  estimate  of  his  position, 
and  increase  their  confidence  in  him.  A  short-sighted  man  will 
probably  reason  that  a  group  of  people  who  cannot  share  his  famil- 
iarity with  the  daily  routine  are  not  qualified  to  direct  him,  and  that, 
in  order  to  avert  mistakes,  he  must  make  the  important  decisions 
himself.  Such  an  officer,  instead  of  keeping  his  board  informed,  is 
likely  to  leave  them  more  and  more  in  the  dark.  He  will  pad  their 
meetings  with  comparatively  unimportant  matters,  and  determine 
policies  for  himself.  He  does  not  reflect  upon  the  unfair  position  in 
which  he  thereby  places  trustees  answerable  to  the  public  for  decisions 
of  which  they  are  completely  ignorant.  He  is  really  trying  to  combine 
at  once  the  gratifications  of  an  independent  position  with  a  subordi- 
nate's refuge  from  responsibility  when  it  becomes  uncomfortable. 
I  sometimes  think  that  executive  officers  fail  to  appreciate  the  contact 
with  public  opinion  which  they  get  from  a  representative  board. 
Opposition  from  its  members  at  which  a  secretary  chafes  may  be  in 
miniature  the  same  opposition  which  his  plans  would  meet  with  from 
the  public.  When  he  cannot  marshal  his  facts  and  arguments  so  as 
to  carry  conviction  with  his  own  board,  he  may  usually  be  safe  in 
concluding  that  he  would  also  meet  a  formidable  dissent  outside.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  a  secretary  complains  that  his  board  is  inactive, 
that  he  has  to  shoulder  the  whole  responsibility,  it  is  a  fairly  safe  guess 
that  his  work  is  not  first  class.  Either  he  does  not  arouse  the  interest 
of  his  directors  by  trusting  them  to  decide  important  issues,  or  he 
himself  cannot  distinguish  between  what  has  wide  bearing  and  what  is 
matter  of  detail.  In  the  former  case,  he  betrays  a  misconception  of 
his  function  as  an  educator  by  caring  more  to  secure  a  single  decision 
than  to  start  his  board  thinking  about  the  whole  question.  If  he  can 
interest  his  trustees  in  the  issue  before  them,  it  should  be  of  compara- 
tively shght  importance  that  on  one  point  they  come  to  the  same 
opinion  as  himself,  for  as  soon  as  trustees  lose  the  sense  of  their  weight 
as  an  administrative  body,  their  zeal  flags.  In  the  latter  case,  a 
secretary  who  is  too  unreflective  to  recognize  the  bearing  of  policies 
tires  his  board  with  trifles,  and  enmeshes  essential  points  in  wordiness 
and  irrelevance.     Tedious  board  meetings  make  an  inactive  board. 

The  division  of  responsibility  between  secretary  and  board  is, 
broadly  speaking,  that  the  board  forms  policies,  the  secretary  puts 
them  into  effect.  But  since  the  executive  commands  the  facts  on 
which  policies  must  be  based,  and  since  the  board  must  see  that  de- 
cisions are  carried  out,  their  responsibilities  merge.  The  executive 
and  his  trustees  must  go  hand  in  hand. 

The  Relation  of  The  third  duty  of  a  board  is  that  of  maintaining 
the  Director  to  esprit  de  corps  among  the  employees.  As  Mr. 
the  Staff  Russell  Robb  observes,  this  spirit  grows  not  from 

below  up,  but  from  the  top  down.    It  is  a  reflection  of  the  earnestness 


of  those  directing.*  To  bring  about  this  loyalty,  directors  should 
contrive  to  get  enough  acquainted  with  their  various  subordinates 
to  know  which  do  what  work  well.  This  is  often  felt  to  be  out 
of  the  question,  because  it  takes  time  and  may  seem  to  slight  the 
secretary's  position  as  their  superior.  Both  these  objections  can 
be  met,  however,  by  calling  upon  employees  to  report  at  commit- 
tee meetings  on  special  cases  or  on  special  pieces  of  work,  and  by 
welcoming  their  suggestions  thereon.  This  would  serve  to  make  sub- 
ordinates feel  themselves  identified  with  the  activities  of  the  board. 
The  abler  workers,  in  particular,  feel  this  need  of  recognition  and  scope. 
I  have  known  a  number  of  instances  in  which  a  high  grade  of  charity 
worker  could  have  been  more  securely  retained  by  encouraging  his 
sense  of  influence  in  the  administration.  Unlike  business,  with  its 
more  military  organization,  charity  depends  for  its  success  on  making 
subordinate  positions  attractive  to  educated  employees,  and  on  in- 
spiring them  to  self-devotion.  Some  may  argue  that  under  good 
direction  a  half-educated  employee  can  do  case  work;  and  so  he  can, 
if  one  expects  him  merely  to  follow  a  routine.  But  if  one  expects 
case  workers  to  see  more  than  what  lies  on  the  surface,  to  discern 
elements  that  others  may  have  missed,  to  get  at  complex  causes,  one 
must  maintain  as  fine  a  personnel  for  this  service  as  for  that  of  direct- 
ing. One  might  almost  say  that  in  social  work  no  detail  is  unimport- 
ant if  the  right  person  looks  at  it.  In  order  to  keep  this  superior 
grade  of  subordinate  a  board  must  make  sure  that  the  secretary,  while 
maintaining  discipline,  allows  those  serving  under  him  sufiicient  scope 
for  their  ability.  Trustees  and  executive  together  should  take  account 
of  each  worker's  merits  and  aptitudes,  and  assign  their  positions  and 
promotions  accordingly.  A  society  which  employs  a  large  force 
needs  always  to  bear  in  mind  the  depressing  effect  of  a  big  ofiice  on 
spirit  and  ambition.  The  individual  grows  to  feel  that  he  is  of  small 
account,  that  whereas  any  lapse  below  a  certain  standard — which  he 
soon  learns — will  drop  him,  any  special  devotion  may  never  come  to 
the  management's  notice.  I  have  in  mind  an  office  in  which  older 
employees  frequently  said  to  enthusiastic  newcomers  that  it  did  not 
pay  to  show  devotion,  that  no  one  knew  the  difference,  or  gave  any 
credit  for  it.  And  what  they  said  was  true.  If  a  visitor  gave  up 
half-holidays  or  worked  over- time,  nobody  seemed  to  care;  whereas 
if  he  was  five  minutes  late  for  two  or  three  mornings,  he  incurred  a 
reproof.  In  the  cases  just  cited,  the  only  contact  between  office  and 
board  was  through  one  director  who,  every  four  months  or  so,  talked 
with  the  same  executive.  Of  the  workers  he  scarcely  knew  any, 
even  by  sight.  The  effect  was  what  might  have  been  foreseen.  The 
abler  employees  took  positions  elsewhere  as  soon  as  they  could;  the 
less  able  settled  down  to  a  listless  jog-trot. 

When  boards  make  a  point  of  attracting  educated  people  to  sub- 
ordinate positions,  they  ought  to  secure  among  them  a  fair  number  of 
workers  who  can  discover  new  problems,  or  rather,  new  aspects  of  old 
*  Russell  Robb:  Stone  and  Webster  Public  Service  Journal,  April,  1909. 


problems,  and  who  will,  in  the  course  of  their  daily  work,  accumulate 
facts  with  such  care  that  conclusions  deserving  to  be  termed  scientific 
may  be  drawn  from  them.  Social  research  that  involves  an  under- 
standing of  motives  and  feelings  is  best  done,  not  as  an  impersonal 
study,  but  in  the  course  of  natural  human  contacts.  Where  human 
nature  is  concerned,  the  facts  to  be  descried  are  so  many  and  so  com- 
plex, that  it  takes  the  continued  acquaintance  which  a  case  worker 
has  with  her  charges  to  envisage  them  with  that  penetrating  imagi- 
native sympathy  that  can  analyze  motives  and  feelings  with  justice. 
I  believe  that  the  future  development  of  charity  lies  in  the  direction 
of  research  as  a  by-product  of  case  work  by  gifted  subordinates.  At 
present  the  abler  worker  tends  to  be  drawn  into  executive  positions. 
These  positions  are  better  paid,  and  carry  a  prestige  not  often  given  to 
those  who  deal  immediately  with  dependents.  But  executives  who 
have  once  ministered  directly  to  beneficiaries  must  feel  aware  of 
their  loss  in  the  live  grasp  of  problems.  The  fact  is,  one  can  hardly 
do  original  thinking  on  any  social  subject  without  some  first-hand 
contact.  Since  original  ability  can  find  as  full  scope  in  field  work  as 
in  executive  work,  may  not  the  field  agent  come  to  bear  as  dignified 
a  relation  to  the  executive  as  the  medical  scientist  does  to  the  superin- 
tendent of  a  hospital?  But  if  we  are  to  have  subordinates  with  men- 
tal initiative,  directors  must  see  to  it  that  executives  do  not,  through 
jealousy,  suppress  and  discourage  them,  either  by  appropriating  what 
they  do,  or  by  grudging  it  publicity.  In  the  medical  profession,  in 
hospitals,  this  is  a  very  real  danger,  and  human  nature  does  not  change 
when  it  goes  into  charity.  Executive  and  scientist,  however,  certainly 
occupy  distinct  fields,  and  it  would  seem  as  if  the  two  activities  could 
each  find  scope  without  collision. 

The  performance  of  the  duty  that  rests  on  the  director  to  acquaint 
himself  with  details  and  to  maintain  an  esprit  de  corps  among  em- 
ployees exacts  from  him  no  more  time  than  is  already  given  by  many 
volunteers.  But  it  does  exact  from  him  more  thought  upon  system- 
atizing what  is  to  be  presented  to  his  colleagues  and  himself  in  their 
sessions. 

Such  are  the  duties  of  a  private  board.  A  pub- 
a  PubUc^Board'*  ^^^  board,  except  as  regards  the  constitution  of  its 
body,  has  the  same  duties.  It  has,  however,  to 
cope  with  some  special  conditions.  Public  charity  tends  to  ossify 
about  the  letter  of  the  law.  This  tendency  is  due  primarily  to  the 
natural  human  inertia  that  leads  employees  without  external  incentive 
to  settle  into  humdrum.  Even  business  industries  have  not  yet  solved 
the  problem  of  getting  from  each  man  his  maximum  output.  The  typi- 
cal government  employee,  the  man  who  jogs  on  from  year  to  year  in  a 
leisurely  routine,  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  public  charity.  He  exists 
partly  because  of  an  imperfect  system  of  rewarding  merit,  whereby  his 
pay  advances  usually  according  to  his  length  of  service  rather  than 
because  of  signal  ability.  He  exists  partly  because  of  a  wide-spread 
feeling  that  the  government  is  everybody's  big  uncle.     Apparently 


people  take  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  government  positions  should 
be  unexacting,  and  do  not  reflect  that  soft  berths  entail  an  unnecessary 
and  expensive  swelling  of  department  staffs.  I  knew  at  one  time  a 
bright,  energetic  girl  who  got  her  first  training  and  experience  in  a 
well-managed  private  charity.  She  then  took  a  position  in  the  pub- 
lic charity  bureau  of  the  same  city.  A  few  months  after  the  change, 
she  told  me  that  her  professional  standards  were  deteriorating.  She 
found  that  she  could  turn  off  so  much  more  work  than  her  colleagues 
that,  in  order  to  escape  the  odium  of  a  pace-maker,  she  would  finish 
her  assignment  of  cases  to  be  visited  by  noon,  and  take  the  balance  of 
the  day  for  herself.  Her  chief,  she  said,  showed  equal  indifference  to 
the  capacity  and  enthusiasm  she  had  showed  before  she  learned  the 
office  standard,  and  to  the  lassitude  she  manifested  afterwards. 

Another  influence  tending  to  breed  inertia  is  the  working  out  of 
the  civil  service  system.  The  security  of  tenure  by  which  it  attracts 
on  the  whole  a  higher  grade  of  man,  may  then  demoralize  him.  Even 
a  promising  employee  will  relax,  when  placed  where  only  flagrant  mis- 
behavior will  incur  discharge.  Whether  or  not  his  output  rises  above 
a  minimum,  he  gets  his  increase  year  by  year  until  he  obtains  the  maxi- 
mum salary  for  that  class  of  work.  Then,  unless  he  is  one  of  the  few 
who  push  into  another  class,  he  knows  "  nor  hope  to  rise,  nor  fear  to 
fall."  He  is  unlikely  to  get  more,  but  he  will  never  be  dropped,  and 
he  inevitably  slumps  into  routine.  This  tendency  to  stagnate  trustees 
can  coimteract  by  occasionally  receiving  reports  direct  from  employees. 
An  "ex-official,"  writing  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  testifies  as  follows 
to  the  analogous  practice  of  Mr.  Roosevelt:  "He  was  not  content  to 
listen  to  the  perfunctory  reports  of  cabinet  officers,  but  claimed  and 
exercised  the  privilege  of  dealing  directly  with  any  bureau  chief  or 
subordinate  who  could  aid  the  executive  by  expert  knowledge  of  com- 
plicated problems.  The  effect  of  this  poHcy,  while  not  always  pleas- 
ing to  cabinet  officers,  was  inspiring  in  the  extreme  to  subordinate 
officials;  it  spurred  them  to  unprecedented  zeal,  which  in  turn  was 
diffused  by  them  among  their  subordinates.  A  new  and  surprising 
energy,  a  genuine  awakening  of  enthusiasm  for  tasks  made  dull  by  long 
routine,  took  possession  of  the  federal  service." 

Board  and  employees  ahke  feel  the  influence  of  a  third  motive  that 
makes  for  inertia  and  for  an  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  namely, 
the  fear  of  criticism.  The  work  of  any  public  board  offers  the  stuff 
for  political  capital.  One  party  administration  may  come  in  with 
the  cry  that  the  state  boards  are  extravagant  and  that  per  capita 
costs  must  come  down,  while  the  authorities  of  a  year  later  may  hold 
the  same  trustees  up  to  opprobrium  because  they  have  not  introduced 
expensive  equipment  for  the  welfare  of  their  dependents.  Since  there 
will  always  be  diverse  judgments  on  the  propriety  of  expenditures, 
there  can  at  any  time  be  an  excuse  for  either  criticism.  Added  to  this 
is  the  unfortunate  fact  that  while  scandals  make  entertaining  news- 
paper stories,  accounts  of  faithful  service  are  as  a  rule  dull  reading. 
Consequently  when  a  mistake  made  by  some  board  becomes  pubUc, 

13 


the  impression  given  is  not  that  of  a  single  oversight,  but  of  a  generally 
blundering  administration  whose  incompetence  has  at  last  come  to 
light.  The  effect  upon  a  board  of  this  lack  of  discrimination  is  to 
bring  about  at  once  timidity  and  indifference.  Ex-President  Taft  has 
spoken  *  of  the  undeserved  or  exaggerated  fault-finding  which  is  likely 
to  descend  upon  public  servants,  often  with  the  deplorable  effect  of 
making  them  callous  even  to  discerning  censure.  Hit-or-miss  blame 
makes  labor  seem  rather  thankless.  It  has  another  bad  effect  in  that 
it  leads  to  a  short-sighted  stand-pattism  on  the  part  of  those  under 
fire.  They  believe  that  since  any  defect,  however  inevitable,  may  be 
turned  against  them  opprobriously,  they  can  defend  themselves  only 
by  covering  up  mistakes  and  disguising  matters  of  doubt  by  an  assured 
tone.  They  feel  that  admissions  of  weakness  even  to  the  extent  of 
speaking  of  hopes  for  future  development,  may  only  be  playing  into 
the  hands  of  those  who  are  anxious  to  find  a  plea  for  putting  them  into 
the  pillory.  Such  stand-pattism,  if  it  succeeds  for  a  time,  may  blind 
even  the  trustees  themselves  to  the  need  of  advancing  with  the  spirit 
of  their  day.  The  difficulty  here  lies  at  bottom  in  an  ill-defined  notion 
of  what  they  are  to  take  as  public  opinion.  What  is  public  opinion? 
It  is  not,  as  commonly  supposed,  a  definite  and  articulate  judgment: 
it  is  rather  a  dominant  but  hazily  defined  trend  of  feeling.  On  any 
important  social  policy  at  any  one  time,  there  are  diverse  bodies  of 
sentiment,  conservative,  radical,  neutral,  etc.,  which  may  remain 
inchoate,  may  wax  or  wane,  and  under  favoring  conditions  may  be- 
come articulate  and  dominant.  All  are  potentially  changeable,  but 
they  vary  in  tractability,  according  to  the  spirit  of  the  times.  People 
who  have  occasion  to  interpret  public  opinion  sometimes  make  the 
mistake  of  giving  a  general  sentiment  some  special  application  at 
which  it  has  not  yet  arrived  and  may  never  do  so.  For  instance,  I 
remember  hearing  a  business  man  maintain  that  public  opinion  was 
tending  toward  shorter  sentences  for  drunkards.  He  mistook  the 
sentiment  in  favor  of  probation  and  of  lenience  to  first  offenders  as 
applicable  even  to  chronic  inebriates.  The  nature  of  public  opinion 
is  a  vital  matter  to  the  members  and  executives  of  a  public  board,  since 
they  must  interpret  by  its  light  the  laws  which  they  carry  out.  Even 
''the  letter  of  the  law"  is  no  such  precise  thing  as  to  exempt  them  from 
discretion  in  its  application.  When  officials,  in  an  attempt  to  escape 
criticism,  fall  back  upon  a  literal  interpretation  of  a  statute  that 
ignores  its  spirit,  they  are  actually  giving  effect  to  the  conservative 
sentiment  in  society.  As  I  have  seen  officials,  judges  included,  it  has 
seemed  to  me  that  they  are  even  nervously  anxious  to  follow  public 
opinion.  The  difficulty  is  that  they  do  not  discern  which  of  the  more 
or  less  nebulous  bodies  of  sentiment  is  the  one  charged  with  the  great- 
est momentum.  Since  ideals  are  in  a  constant  state  of  change,  and 
since  they  contain  in  themselves  various  degrees  of  vitality,  it  takes 
clear  insight  and  often  a  certain  moral  elevation  to  decide  which  of 
many  opinions  is  the  one  that  deserves  and  is  likely  to  win  permanence. 
*In  an  address  before  the  Lotus  Club,  New  York,  November  i6,  191 2. 

14 


Enlightened  opinion  is  almost  at  no  time  popular,  for  when  it  has  won 
a  general  acceptance,  the  issue  has  become  stale.  So  rapidly,  indeed, 
may  public  opinion  change,  that  in  order  to  keep  abreast  of  enlight- 
enment, a  man  must  often  uphold  ideas  not  yet  observably  current; 
he  must  lead,  that  he  may  not  lag  behind.  Public  directors,  embracing 
in  their  number  the  diverse  points  of  view  of  representatives  of  various 
callings  and  traditions,  should  be  able  to  discriminate  which  of  the 
opinions  afloat  in  society  are  merely  passing  social  vagaries,  and  which 
have  a  sound  basis  of  statesmanship.  This  question  once  determined, 
the  constitution  of  their  body  shoidd  enable  them  to  judge  when  they 
may  wisely  come  out  in  frank  leadership,  and  when  they  should  em- 
ploy the  slower  method  of  gradual  persuasion.  Their  ideal  might  be 
taken  from  the  words  of  Gladstone:  "It  must  not  be  considered  as  the 
simple  acceptance  of  public  opinion,  founded  upon  the  discernment 
that  it  has  risen  to  a  certain  height  needful  for  a  given  work,  like  a  tide. 
It  is  an  insight  into  the  facts  of  particular  eras,  and  their  relation  one 
to  another,  which  generates  in  the  mind  a  conviction  that  the  materials 
exist  for  forming  a  public  opinion  and  for  directing  it  to  a  particular 
end."* 

To  this  end  directors  should  present  a  more  personal  appeal  to 
the  commimity  than  the  ofl&cial  statements  in  their  annual  reports. 
These  reports  are  necessarily  encumbered  with  unreadable  matter, 
reach  only  those  professionally  concerned,  and  often  come  out  too 
late.  Would  it  not  be  prudent  for  such  boards  from  time  to  time  to 
explain  their  policies  and  plans  through  signed  editorials  in  the  leading 
newspapers?  The  trustees  themselves,  by  their  executive  officer, 
would  have  to  prepare  and  be  responsible  for  these  short  articles,  since 
the  ordinary  newspaper  reporter  has  not  the  professional  knowledge 
to  make  clear  the  relation  of  their  special  constructive  plans  to  large 
issues.  Such  an  aggressive  method  on  their  part  would  disarm  unin- 
formed criticism,  and  would  be  a  means  by  which  trustees  could  bring 
their  knowledge  and  experience  to  bear  in  forming  public  opinion. 

Directors,  public  or  private,  who  maintain  a  high  standard  in 
their  own  society  thereby  qualify  themselves  to  conceive  clearly  the 
function  which  that  society  should  fiilfil  in  its  relation  to  other  philan- 
thropies in  city  and  state.  They  are,  as  it  were,  a  committee  from 
society  at  large,  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  success  of  a 
special  charity  should  be  at  one  with  the  public  interest. 

*  John  Morley:  Life  of  Gladstone.    Vol.  II,  p.  240. 


IS 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  CHARITY  ORGANIZATION 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  RUSSELL  SAGE 

FOUNDATION 

MISS  M.  E.  RICHMOND.  Director  FRED  S.  HALL.  Asso.  Director 

MISS  M.  F.  BYINGTON.  Asso.  Director 


SERIES  B  LEAFLETS 

1.  WHAT  IS  ORGANIZED  CHARITY? 

2.  RELIEF— A  PRIMER Frederic  Almy. 

3.  TREATMENT— (FAMILY  REHABILITATION) Porter  R.  Lee. 

5.  PASSING  ON  AS  A  METHOD  OF  CHARITABLE  RELIEF. 

No.  It  80  cents  a  hundred.     No.  3,  70  cents  a  hundred.  Nos.  2  and  5,  $(.40  a  hundred. 
These  prices  and  all  that  follow  include  postage  or  ezpressage. 

MISCELLANEOUS  PAMPHLETS 

6.  THE  FORMATION  OF  CHARITY  ORGANIZATION 

SOCIETIES  IN  SMALLER  CITIES Francis  H.  McLean. 

JO  cents  each;    $8.00  per  hundred. 

7.  WHAT     SOOAL     WORKERS     SHOULD     KNOW 

ABOUT  THEIR  OWN  COMMUNITIES Margaret  F.  Byington. 

5  cents  each;  $3.50  per  hundred. 

10.  ORGANIZATION  IN  SMALLER  CITIES Alexander  Johnson. 

60  cents  per  hundred. 

tU  A  MODERN  ST.  GEORGE Jacob  A.  Riis. 

Reprint  by  permission  from  Scribner's  Magazine^  $1.80  per  hundred. 

12.  EFFiaENT  PHILANTHROPY Rev.  George  Hodges,  D.D. 

$1.45  per  hundred. 

28.  THE  CONFIDENTIAL  EXCHANGE Margaret  F.  Byington. 

5  cents  each;    $3.50  per  hundred. 
31.  PUBLIC  PENSIONS  TO   WIDOWS  WITH   CHIL- 
DREN.    A  Study  of  their  Administration C.  C.  Carstens. 

10  cents  each;    $6.50  per  hundred. 
33.  THE  CHARITY  DIRECTOR.     A  Brief  Study  of  his 

Responsibilities Ada  Eliot  She£Field 

5  cents  each;    $2.50  per  hundred. 

FORMS,  BLANKS,  ETC. 

13.  TELEGRAPHIC  CODE  AND  TRANSPORTATION  AGREEMENT,  17  cents  each. 

(Sent  only  to  signers  of  the  Agreement.) 

16.  HOMELESS  MAN  RECORD  FORM,  85  cents  per  hundred. 

17.  DIAGNOSIS  AND  TREATMENT  RECORD  FOR  FAMILIES,  60  cents  per  hun- 

dred. 
J  8.  INQUIRY  BLANKS,  28  cents  per  pad  of  hundred. 
19.  INQUIRY  REPLY  BLANKS,  28  cents  per  pad  of  hundred. 

21.  DIRECTIONS  CARD  FOR  USE  WITH  CARD  NO.  30  (Supplied  without  charge 

with  orders  for  Card  No.  30). 

22.  CASE  RECORD  FORM  (yellow)  with  horizontal  lines,  75  cents  per  hundred. 

23.  CASE  RECORD  FORM  (yellow)  without  horizontal  lines,  75  cents  per  hundred. 

24.  CASE  RECORD  FORM  (blue)  with  horizontal  lines,  75  cents  per  hundred. 

25.  CASE  RECORD  FORM  (blue)  without  horizontal  lines,  75  cents  per  hundred. 

26.  RELIEF  RECORD  FORM,  with  horizontal  lines,  75  cents  per  hundred. 

27.  RELIEF  RECORD  FORM,  without  horizontal  lines,  75  cents  per  hundred. 

30.  CASE  INDEX  OR  CONFIDENTIAL  EXCHANGE  CARD,  36  cents  per  hundred. 

Sample  copies  of  all  but  No.  13  of  the  above,  except  those  pamphlets  to  which 
a  price  for  single  copies  is  affixed,  will  be  sent  free  upon  request,  or  in  quantities  at 
the  prices  named,  which  cover  the  cost  of  postage  or  expressage.     Address 

CHARITY  ORGANIZATION  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE 
RUSSELL  SAGE  FOUNDATION 

Room  613,  JOS  East  22d  Street,  New  York  City 
16 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing: 
to  f  1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


%» 


9o 


fS3o 


9 


fe'o'^BB 


NlftRl2^956S. 


50m-7,'29 


